Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Yet H.R.1, nicknamed the "Corrupt Politicians Act," clearly states (emphasis added):

An individual is eligible to  serve as a member of an independent redistricting  commission if the individual meets each of the following criteria: . . .

(iv) The reason or reasons the individual desires to serve on the independent redistricting commission, the individual’s qualifications, and information relevant to the ability of the individual to be fair and impartial, including, but not limited to— (I) any involvement with, or financial support of, professional, social, political, religious, or community organizations or causes;

Although in the past President Biden described court-packing as a “bonehead idea," he and his liberal allies are now calling for this complete power grab.

Six out of the nine SCOTUS justices were appointed by Republicans; therefore, Democrats want to add more seats, so they can outnumber conservatives. They are shamelessly attempting to change the rules to get what they want.

Alan Dershowitz, the long-time Harvard Professor and constitutional scholar who defended former President Trump during his first impeachment trial, published an opinion in the Wall Street Journal titled No, You Can't Impeach a Former President.  In this opinion, Dershowitz argues that Trump's upcoming Senate impeachment trial must be dismissed because the Senate no longer has jurisdiction to convict Trump since he is no longer the president. 

Today, House Democrats and lawyers for former President Trump filed their Trial Memorandum and Answer in the upcoming impeachment trial of former President Trump.  The legal arguments in these documents raise important issues, such as lack of jurisdiction and due process. 

On jurisdiction, former President Trump's lawyers argue in their response:

The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President because he holds no public office from which he can be removed rendering the Article of Impeachment moot and a non-justiciable question.

We've reached a point in our history where, to the mainstream media and liberals, the values of freedom and liberty, so fundamental to our nation, have become controversial and even "racist."  In honor of the 233rd anniversary of the signing of the Constitution today, both President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr gave strong defenses of America's founding principles, which are enshrined in the Constitution.

On Sunday night, a new interview with Attorney General Bill Barr aired on Mark Levin's "Life, Liberty, and Levin." The interview covered an array of topics including recent public unrest and voting issues. Levin's interview comes only a few weeks after Attorney General Barr endured hours of unfettered questioning by House Democrats at a Judiciary hearing.

On Wednesday, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn emerged victorious in the fight over whether to grant his writ of mandamus filed in the D.C. Circuit. This comes after U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan refused to dismiss Flynn’s case, despite the Department of Justice informing the court that it was no longer pursuing charges against him. Judge Sullivan appointed John Gleeson as amicus curiae to argue for his ability to decide whether the charges should be dropped. In an opinion authored by Judge Neomi Rao the D.C. Circuit admonished Judge Sullivan’s decision to appoint Gleeson and ordered the lower court to dismiss the charges against Flynn.

While Republican lawmakers continue to promote the rule of law in response to recent nationwide unrest, Democratic lawmakers in Seattle are taking the opposite approach. One week ago, a group of protestors seized 6 blocks of the area surround Seattle’s Capitol Hill and  established the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) or Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP). Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkin has taken a hands off approach to the takeover, even going so far as abandoning the Seattle Police’s East Precinct against the wishes of Police Chief Carmen Best.

Apparently both the left and the right are outraged at aspects of Judge Sullivan's decision to delay granting the Department of Justice’s motion to drop the case against Michael Flynn.  But while one side respects the separation of powers and the rule of law, the other side is acting like a schoolyard bully making threats.

To our minds, Judge Sullivan blurs separation of powers when he appointed a retired judge who publicly expressed opinions against Flynn to review the case and accept amicus curiae briefs.  Judge Sullivan seems to be acting like a prosecutor, not an “umpire” judge.  While we consider Judge Sullivan’s decision extremely troubling, we think Flynn’s lawyers took the appropriate course of action in this case by requesting a writ of mandamus. 

General Michael Flynn's attorneys have requested a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit ordering that the Department of Justice's unopposed motion to dismiss be granted.  While mandamus is an extraordinary writ, the district judge's actions in the past two weeks have also been extraordinary.  As Hans von Spakovsky explained: